Demographic and Economic Statistics

I. Statistics for the Jews of Sandz in 1866

The Days of Puronyes [Affliction]

by Rafal Mahler

Translated by William Leibner

Edited by Renee Miller
According to the voting ordinance of 1861, of the electoral group of those who have small possessions, the first two-thirds of the taxpayers in the city, or in the gemaynde (dorfs and shtetlekh) [towns and villages] were entitled to participate in the voting for the Galician Sejm (landtag) [diet of the province]. The first two-thirds were counted from those most taxed and the last third, the least taxed, were actually not on the voting list. Aside from these, residents with higher education, that is, those who responded in the census as intellectuals: priests, officials and retired officers, lawyers, notaries, doctors, high school professors and teachers [1], were eligible to vote in the same electoral group, independent of their taxability. As a matter of course, it was necessary for every city or community to put together two lists for voting: the first list, consisted of all taxpayers and the intellectuals, and a second that noted only those eligible to vote, that is, the first two-thirds of those on the tax rolls and the intellectuals.

In connection with the vote for the Sejm of February 4, 1867, three voters' lists were maintained for the city of Sandz [2]: 1) a list that included all taxpayers in the city and the largest portion of the intellectuals eligible to vote. This list shows 820 residents, 685 taxpayers and 135 who responded to the census as intellectuals. 2) The final list of those eligible to vote consisted of 483 people, of these, 321 taxpayers and 162 the intellectuals. 3) A third list was also maintained, a kind of notebook with the final list (list 2), with 636 names, of which 480 were numbered and 156 were unnumbered. The voter-eligible taxpayers, according to the final list (list 2) therefore, included less than a half of the

[Page 203]

complete list of taxpayers (List 1), although, according to the previously mentioned voting ordinance, it should have equaled two-thirds. Such a reduction comes from the fact that not only was a third removed from the list, that is, those taxed the very least, but also all women taxpayers since women did not have the right to vote; besides this, they crossed out such taxpayers that had left the city long ago [3], including also those who had died [4].

List 1 included among the 685 taxpayers 371 people who could not be identified as Jews either by their family or given name. By the same token, List 2 has, among the 321 taxpayers 166 Jews; in addition, there are on List 2 among those intellectuals eligible to vote, two names that are without a doubt Jewish: these are the lawyer Dr. Leo Berson and the physician Dr. Warman [5].

For the purpose of professional and social statistics, we will use the analysis of the following List 1 that includes all taxpayers in the city.

As we note in the title of all three voting lists, the total residents of the city of Sandz were, at that time, 7550 souls. According to the proportion of Jews in Sandz at the beginning of the 19th century and later in 1880, we can make the assumption that in 1866, Jews totaled nearly 40% [6], around 3000 people. If we accept that an average family was four people, the general number of heads of household at that time in the city was about 2900: 1140 Christian and 760 Jewish. The 820 taxpayers and intellectuals who are published in List 1 are therefore, about 43% of the general number of heads of household in the city. The number 440 on the list is about 39% of all Christian heads of household and 371 Jews - 49% of all Jewish heads of household.

The higher percent of Jewish taxpayers is a result of their social-leadership structure, chiefly their higher participation in commerce.

The greater number of house owners, almost 50%, is not remarkable because we have here only heads of household who have paid taxes. In reality, the number and proportion of house owners was more than a half of the heads of household on the list, because the honorary officials, and so forth, did not give any details as to whether they really owned them, just as the amount of the taxes is not noted, because this was not a condition of their right to participate in the voting. On the other hand we also have to take into account that among the 288 residents whose only source of earnings on the list is noted as the ownership of a house, were those who also had other sources of earnings, such as commerce, credit, brokerage and the like and here is the proof.

[Page 204]

Besides, for most of them, house tax was stated in the sum of the additional revenue tax that they paid annually.

The highest earnings groups of the residents that figure in List 1 are shown in the following table:

TABLE 1

The Taxpayers In Sandz In 1866 According To The Leadership Branches

Wage earnings and callings

Jews

Christians

Totals

Of these, home-owners

Total

Of these, home-owners

Total

Of these, home-owners

Totals

home owners

96

96

192

192

288

288

estate owners

---

1

---

2*

----

3

monopoly fees and propinacja [literally: taprooms] and excise

---

---

---

----

----

4

saloon keepers, wine bar keepers and inns

10

31

3

7

13

38

trade

28

180

5

12

33

192

trades and industry

12

53

51

93

63

146

transport

---

1

---

---

----

1

service and others

---

2

2

2

2

4

professionals, administrators

---

1**

----

139***

----

140

unknown

---

2

---

2

4

TOTALS

146

371

253

449

339

820

*

The estate owners were the mayor and the pharmacist

**

Juliush Salomon (Freidberg) court council

***

Here were included 4 attorneys and the postmaster, who appear on the general list as taxpayers

The major earning group among the taxed Jews as seen in table 1 is trade.

Of the 371taxed Jewish heads of household, 180 are involved in trade, that is, 48.5%, if we include the saloonkeepers, wine bar keepers and owners of inns. Trade and tavern keeping together are approximately 57% of the noted kinds of work. Among Christians on the list the number occupied with tavern keeping and trade is 4.2%. The participation of Jews among all taxed employers in trade reached 93.7%. Not a lot smaller, 82% - -(31 of 38) in the proportion of Jews among the saloonkeepers.

Different than with trade, only a scant 14.2% were artisans among all the Jews on the tax list, 53 among 371, including a miller. We have to take into account that artisans, because of their social circumstances in general were less represented than merchants and dealers on the list where only taxpayers were included. Also among the Christians on the list there are not a lot more artisans than among Jews  20.4%. Therefore, it actually turns out, according to the list, that although the Jewish artisans are only 14.2% of all Jews, they reach as much as 36.5% among all the counted artisans in the city (53 compared to 145). Because of this same characteristic of the list, no married servants, day workers etc. were considered although there surely was no lack of them among Jews and Christians.

The count of taxpayers according to different callings and trades is seen in Table 2.

** Mayor and pharmacist appear on the list of taxpayers, similarly, the postmaster

Yiddish names: Julius Solomon Friedberg, court council (number 712)

[Page 207]

Without examining the fragmented character of the taxpayer list, it certainly shows up and reflects the Jewish and non-Jewish merchants and artisans in the city according to their line of business and trade.

Among the 180 Jewish taxpayers who are merchants, 35 are shopkeepers and tradesmen and 3 are brokers. It is unnecessary to note that also among the other half of the Jews who did not pay any taxes, the number of shop keepers, market tradesmen and ordinary tradesmen was without a doubt significant. In the real sense, among lines of business that Jewish merchants were engaged in, the greatest is the fashion and clothing line, with 24 heads of households. Second place goes to grain and food; both employing up to 20 heads of household. The third is barley, 14 heads of household; grains, flour (6) and salt (9) together employed 29 merchants. Smaller lines of trade were wood (4), hardware (4) and liquor (5). Fruit, candles, men's hats and lime had two each. One each - oxen, shoes and glassware, and characteristically in Jewish trade there also was the group of 10 shpeculantn that is, those involved in luft gesheftn [literally: living on air and wind, insubstantial work].

The business of Christian tradesmen that includes 12 taxpayers in total, 15 times fewer than for Jewish taxpayers also had another group similar Jewish businesses. Shpeculantn are missing among Christians on one side and brokers on the other side. As for merchants themselves, in the real sense, there are not more than 10 and almost all in the nutrition line of business: flour (4), grains (2), food (1) apart from 1 starch merchant.

The analysis according to lines of business very clearly confirms the fact that with very few exceptions the nutrition and shop keeping, business in Sandz in 1866 was a Jewish monopoly.

Jewish crafts that included more than a third of the taxed heads of household was characteristic in its traditional one-sidedness. The one-sidedness would be even clearer if we had numbers of the untaxed craftsmen, who were necessarily recruited from the tailor repairers and shoe menders, butchers, bagel bakers, makers of sweet cakes and the like. Of the 53 recorded Jewish craftsmen, 14, that is 25% were employed in the clothing business: 8 tailors, 4 cap makers, 1 furrier, 1 lace maker. Characteristic is the fact that in the list of taxpayers there is not one shoemaker. The food business was roughly as large as the clothing business: 12 bakers and 4 butchers, a total of 30% of all Jewish craftsmen. Only the two lines of business: clothing and food included more than half of the Jewish crafts. In the metal lines, not one single Jewish blacksmith or locksmith is noted, but there are 4 tinsmiths, 1 who worked with knives and 4 goldsmiths. In the wood business there are no table makers or carpenters at all, only two turners.

[Page 209]

Two padding makers represent the textile industry, 1 glazier and 1 room painter the building industry. There also was 1 tanner and one who worked with knives. The picture of the Jewish artisan taxpayers in the city included 2 hairdressers who actually belonged, along with the bath attendant to the hygienic line.

Also among the 93 Christian craftsmen from the tax list, the two branches of clothing and food together came to 54 craftsmen, that is 60% of the total. However, this includes 13 shoemakers. The remaining half of the Christian craftsmen includes many put together from a large group in the wood line of business (14), a very significant group in metal (9) and a few in the various crafts that are generally unknown among Jews: saddle maker, sharpener (whet stone), printer, bookbinder.

As a kind of reaction to the actual Jewish monopoly in trade we find almost no Jews employed in professions and civil service. In List 1) and in the final list of those with the right to vote, there are 3 Jews, one medical doctor, one attorney and one court official.

In the list of the names of the Sandzer Jewish residents that we have assembled by virtue of the many varieties of voter lists (see above), 431 residents figure in, that is, 60 more that in List 1) the one we have used as a basis for analysis of the proportional structure of the Jewish population in Sandz in 1866 (see Tables 1 and 2). The employment of these 60 residents who we got from the list of names is the following:

Of the callings that we did not find in List 1), are these: 2 booksellers, a jewelry manufacturer and merchant; a fish and honey dealer and also a medical doctor (Warman) and an attorney (Leo Berson) from the professional intelligentsia. Aside from these noted in List 1) court officer Julius Salomon Friedberg (incidentally, he is on List 2) as simply Julius Friedberg).

[Page 210]

We get some idea of the material status of the population through as analysis of the tax payment that is listed for each resident who figures on the list (except those employed in the administration of the communal and government institutions, and also the professional intellectuals).

In List 1) three kinds of tax fees are given where the family supporter was obliged to pay depending on the source of his income: 1) basic tax Gruntowy 2) house-and-class tax tribute Klasyczno-domowy i czynszowy and earnings-income zarobkowy i dochodowy as well as the total of all three taxes. In List 2) the tax fee in total is only given without any specifications. It also happens the amount of the tax fees in relation to the specific residents is different on both lists. And finally we must note that in List 1) the lowest tax fee given is (16 kreuzer) while in List 2) that includes only those eligible to vote according to a census, the least fee is as high as 4 florin, [editor's note: 1 florin = 100 kreuzer] 41 kreuzer.

Here we have the structure of the population according to the amount of tax

TABLE 3

Categories of Tax Payers According to the Amount of the Tax

Total Amount in Gildn

Jews

Christians

Totals

XXX

%

XXX

%

XXX

%

Less than 3.15

56

15.1

64

20.3

120

17.5

3.15

168

45.4

48

15.2

216

31.5

3.18  10.05

62

16.9

73

23.2

135

19.8

10.31  20.45

39

10.5

49

15.6

88

12.9

20.56  49.35

26

7.0

47

7.0

73

10.6

50.19 102.00

12

3.2

19

6.0

31

4.5

103.00  155.80

4

1.9

7

4.7

11

3.2

163.00  203.60

2

3

5

304.73  498.60 (1)

1

5

6

370

100.0

315

100.0

685

100.0

Administrative/ Professional Intellectuals

1

134

135

TOTALS

371

449

820

(1) There are no taxpayers between 203.60 and 304.73 florin

What farft zikh in di oygn [stands out] in the above table is the fact that 60.5% of the Jewish taxpayers belong to the lowest categories of tax (including up to 3.15 florin), while among Christians we find this category is only 35.5% and actually a lot less if we

[Page 211]

take into consideration the administrative and professional intellectuals. Owning a house was not evidence of wealth as shown by the fact that 119 of the residents who paid the least taxes  from 16 kreuzer to 3.06 florin are included in the rubric: major employment  house owner!

In all the remaining tax groups the participation of the Jews is either absolutely or relatively small. Among non-Jewish taxpayers, the higher tax groups are at a ratio of one and a half or two times more represented than Jews. According to the measure of taxes, the relatively richest Jews in Sandz were the following:

Izek Etinger  food merchant and house owner (on List 1) he is listed with 112.23 florin taxes and on List 2) 156.13)

Ezikiel Kanunkel  wine tavern keeper and house owner (132.26)

Mendl Erlich - house owner and wine tavern keeper (on List 1) he pays 140.10 florin while on List 2) he is in fifth place of all the taxpayers with a sum of 269.63)

We find this in List 1): No 475 Fischel Krischer No 528 Jakob Spatz; and a note na Wegrzech written on one side Return

On List 1) under number 504, Izak Oszer Mahler is listed although his grandchild Yitzhok Asher Mahler, who was named after his grandfather was born in 1866. Return

While concerning Drs. Leon Barson and Warman there is no doubt about their Jewishness, there are on the list of intellectuals (List 2) several whose names eliminate then as Jews. Among these are the honorary citizen (obywatel honorowy) Ignacy Kirschner (number 323) and Low Pawel (number 330). Return

As we have noted, Jews in Sandz in 1808 were 31% of the city population. Later, in 1808 the percent of Jews was 46.2 (5163 of the 11,185 city residents). At any rate, although the proportion of Jews in the city continued to grow until 1880, we have to conjecture that in 1866 that it was still less than 14 years later, probably around 40%. Return

This material is made available by JewishGen, Inc.
and the Yizkor Book Project for the purpose of fulfilling our
mission of disseminating information about the Holocaust and
destroyed Jewish communities. This material may not be copied,
sold or bartered without JewishGen, Inc.'s permission. Rights may be
reserved by the copyright holder.

JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification. JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.